On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:50 AM, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com> wrote:
> You've basically defined another display type here: the stack. This was implemented in Mozilla years ago along with flexible boxes, and rather than trying to sneak it in as the default layout system for grid cells, I'd prefer it if we defined stacks separately and then just allow grid cells to use different display types. Then authors could use flexible boxes or blocks to do grid-cell-stacking: rows | columns and stacks to do grid-cell-stacking: layer.
>
> This is an ancient document, but see section 2.2:
>
> http://www-archive.mozilla.org/projects/xul/layout.html
>
> Note that z-index is supported on XUL stacks and works fine without introducing a new property. I think grid-layer should just be replaced with z-index. I don't think it's necessary to support grid-layer across cells, but maybe you have use cases besides stacking within the same cell that could convince me otherwise.
I strongly agree that grid-cell-stacking should be dropped in favor of
display:flexbox and display:stack (to be defined) on grid cells.
display:stack should be extremely simple to define, and useful in
other contexts besides Grid Layout.
~TJ